. >> laura: the love affair between tom friedman and the ccp continues to this day.e free beacon just last month. friedman hosted a think tank helmed by a chinese government advisor deeply and chinese operations. the president of the center for china and globalization to discuss the transformation of globalization in the post-pandemic era is not nice? now they help develop the controversial thousand talents program which the fbi says that beijing uses the steel trade secrets from american companies and then create national security risk for us. the u.s. government. the site is only -- with him some historic or chilean leader for months now. friedman is now being used by the white house to launder some regret. saying that there is deep mistrust between the white house and president zelenskyy as if we don't look too closely under the hood for fear of what corruption or antics we might see when we have invested so much there. this is whiplash time feeling surprise journalist. i read him, glenn, the whiplash here do you feel it? it's pretty alarming that someone who is a

. >> to meet tom friedman's, like the avatar of the journalists to graw is no question that he's onemost influential foreign policy columnists being of "the new york times" for as long as he has. he's all known to been the favorite columnists for both barack obama and the white house was also very friendly with the bush white house he was probably the most most to convince liberals to support the invasion of iraq and he keeps going upward. the most important thing to look at tom friedman is a someone whose married and rest to a billionaire fortune. he's very, very close to wall street where he spends all of his time at dabo's meeting with the saudis and the chinese and so much of what he advocates has nothing to do the interest of the american people but sort this globalist wall street agenda and wall street is probably china's closest ally and it's what he says about china it's it's it's a byproduct of his own interests and the people who he surrounds himself with. >> laura: it's a goldman sachs type conference he's a good type of gas to invite that conference correct? that's how it

like tom friedman in the new york times, it is reckless. the u.s. china relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world. causing a storm in that relationship, you would have to have a really good reason. let's face it, the biggest issue facing our planet, climate change, the future of the global economy, nuclear proliferation and preventing some kind of catastrophic, great power or. these will be determined by u.s.-china relations. i was not pleased to see this. clearly, i am not an expert on u.s. politics. i focus on chinese politics. the trip is no doubt intended to boost the political fortunes of pelosi, and democrats going into the midterms. i think the biden administration was rightly every cautious, and with hoping that she would not go. we are going to see the consequences. i do not think this is going to lead to a war. it might. undoubtedly, this is going to lead to grave tensions and an escalation and aspiring rivalry that could lead to war. i believe our nations are on a collision course. i think responsible leaders

are facing an existential war over russia and ukraine will join us -- the thoughts of columnist tom friedman. there was a block from republican what --blunt. here is part of his response. >> i am going to use four words in a row. those words are speaker pelosi was right when she decided to include taiwan on her visit to asia if she had just been going to taiwan, that would have been right. the highest ranking to be in taiwan in 25 years. the last person to be there at that rate was news green bridge -- rank was newt gingrich. we believe the taiwanese people have a right to be democracy and that is the message that speaker pelosi is taking with her today. china proved in hong kong that there is no one country, two systems. if you are under the control of china, you will be under the control of china and were asked to make a point that taiwan is imported to democracy important to national security and taiwan is imported to the economy is a good point to make an i expect -- and i expect others to follow her example. host: other senators giving their reaction. senator lizzie -- lindsey graham --

or anybody else, because i actually happen to have agreed with tom friedman's piece, and not becauseoken out about human right's rights abuses that happen in china, you've heard me on the air probably to the consternation of our audience. there's a sense, essentially, that you have to pick your fights in life and the wequestion is whether a trip like this, which you said is going to be an excuse by the chinese to launch a more aggressive stance militarily that may become the norm is the right time to pick ha fight. meaning there are probably other times in the future where we want to pick a fight or create some better type of relationship and whether we should be using this trip, simply because she wants to go there, i mean some people would say that this unto itself was just a photo op so i sort of, it's sort of hard to look at this whole situation in total, and i mow tknow therea lot of people who disagree with me but there is a sense that you're poking the bear. why poke the bear right now? is there some strategic reason to do it today rather than wait for this election in china t

we have that very explicit detail in a tom friedman article in the new york times that, that concerns in the white house of this, this trip will jeopardize a very specific discussion that biden's, when having with president she about not replenishing russian alms, which are being depleted in ukraine, so it's all we get all these different layers really get a white house briefing seen as well. so it should be interesting that and then meanwhile we hang from beijing as yeah, we can see that the white house is protesting this visit. but at the same time, we also have seen biden muddy the waters on what strategic strategic ambiguity and the relationship between us and taiwan. so for all we know, he does kind of want that. so these are all the different elements that we have been witnessing over the last few hours. all right, well thank you very much from washington, chaper county bring us the latest and of course, who speaking there about chinese threats and military responsible reports that chinese jets cross the taiwan strait ahead of nancy pelosi. it's arrival the vehicle. pollen is th

and i want to read you, this is from tom friedman this morning why pelosi's visit to taiwan is utterlyen's wishes, she'll be doing something reckless, dangerous. nothing good comes from it taiwan will not be more secure and prosperous as a result of this purely-symbolic visit, and a lot of bad things can happen and if you think our european allies who are facing an existential war with russia in ukraine will join us, triggered by this unnecessary visit, are you badly misreading the world what do you make of that >> well, tom friedman has been apologizing for chinese communists for 20 years and hoping that the democratic party in america could emulate the power that they have so i'm not sure i would take advice from tom friedman on china. but squlooijoe biden hudshould responded. there was no reason to respond as he did to these chinese threats. china makes these kind of threats all the time and to escalate them to something that requires public presidential attention and to continue these leaks about how she's being provocative, how she shouldn't be traveling there, how our military is

tom friedman is a very good, knowledgeable columnist he was once an excellent correspondent for the new york times in the bluff east he gradually evolved to feel like a prophet. and almost all of his prophecies, which are like, but flat earth and countries will never be at war with each other, because they are united by coca-cola and one the internet. all this turned out to be nonsense. but when he speaks like a reporter, and in this case he is giving information about what is happening in the white house more widely in the administration. he usually knows what he's saying and does it, uh, quite responsible, and i've been talking. i thought it was some of the people we talked to there and i also heard, if you want disappointment and annoyance. and president zelensky and his inner circle, but i want to immediately warn our viewers here from understanding that there is a difference, uh, between uh, disappointment and even with irritation on the one hand and a willingness to change american policy towards ukraine , i don’t see such a willingness yet. and zelensky, if i may say so, using th

you know, i don't know whether you saw the column by tom friedman in "the new york times" where he said a time when you want to make sure that china doesn't support russia on ukraine and china has been supporting russia in ukraine, why are you giving china an incentive now to support russia and ukraine? clearly, you can't fight on two fronts. you gotta decide, do you want to win the war in ukraine or do you want to start a war in taiwan? in my book, i point out that what the united states needs to be is a comprehensive, long-term strategy to manage the rise of china. that strategy is missing. and instead you get this random action like this provocative visit by nancy pelosi to taiwan , and you have got to be sure that china is going to react. you cannot do nothing. -- it cannot do nothing. if it does nothing, it will be perceived to be weak. kailey: just a timing update --pelosi's plane is expected to arrive 10:43 local time, less than six minutes from now. you said a moment ago that china in 2022 is not prepared to fight a war with the united states, which brings me to the domestic iss

tom friedman of the new york times was saying this.lking about the administration being uncomfortable having some questions over zelenskyy's handling of the war in the governor. is that what you heard when you're out there? >> well i think that's the kind of thing that you would be more likely to be here in washington, than on the ground in ukraine. but what i want to say about that is that, if anything, that's the reason to prosecute these were crimes now. because, you know we talk about, ukrainians needing to [inaudible] , but some people talking about ukraine's being reasonable and seating grounds to vladimir putin. these trials, these prosecutions, these investigation reminds us what happens to people who live in the land that is occupied by russia. mass scale atrocities that have perpetrated their. >> quick, quick last questions. with britney griner sentencing today. there is talk of a prisoner swap being on the table. a deal? what do you think about the prospects of a deal between the u.s. and russia in the form of a prisoner swa

relationship between president zelenskyy and president biden because i was surprised to read the take tom friedmanwrote this, privately u.s. officials are a lot more concerned about ukraine's leadership than they are letting on. there is deep mistrust between the white house and president zelenskyy of ukraine. considerably more than has been reported. madam ambassador, is that true? >> as we saw from comments of the national security adviser jake sullivan, white house was also surprised. i think that we never had better relations with the u.s. than we have now. we have regular phone calls an contacts between our presidents, ministers of defense, ministers of foreign affairs on all levels. and i think that, you know, the level of trust between our countries and i worked previously as finance minister has never been where it is now. so it was really surprising to hear that. but we're very grateful to president biden, to administration, to congress on the very strong bipartisan basis for being such a true strategic partner but i would say strategic friend for ukraine in this difficult times. and we'l

tom friedman called the speaker's visit utterly reckless. do you agree? >> i don't agree.oth agree with each other and nancy pelosi. howard: that's a headline. >> as you said, we'll keep the tape. she could not cancel visit because china asked her too. -- her to. this is not what happens outside a normal diplomatic visit, and if china is using this as an excuse to do escalatory things, that's on china, not on speaker pelosi. howard: should she have announced she was going? what do we get out of a symbolic visit? it seems to have complicated the cause of taiwan, our ally, which is not exactly what, perhaps, she wanted to accomplish. >> symbols are important in diplomacy in media. there is this question about whether she should have announced it or just showed up, you know, like she did in ukraine, for example. she showed up unannounced. people do that all the time. i think when the media coverage as has -- has focused more on china and not on should nancy pelosi have gone, that's actually a better story. what is china doing, why are they using this as a pretext, not some do

i just don't agree with tom friedman's column at all. >> shannon: what you make of the timing, quicklyt the speaker? why not? you talk about the potential political ramifications of it, but what you think this moment in time, she chose to go? >> i think there was an effort to discourage or postpone the trip for a few months, maybe even a long time. she wanted to do it now. i think this is a cynical observation, and i'm sorry if it offends speaker pelosi, but i think she's got the elections on her might be ago this is an opportunity to really, as i say, neutralize republican criticism that the democrats are soft on china. that, by the way, is how eisenhower got elected in 1952. i know you and i want -- pretty young are not even born at that point, but eisenhower was able to campaign saying who lost china? harry truman and the democrats lost to china. i, eisenhower, we'll sort of get it back. it were to be ago this is a serious election success for nancy pelosi if you're a democrat. [laughs] they were all right, michael pillsbury, we always appreciate your time. thank you for being with

many experts, our next guest new york times foreign affairs column is, tom friedman, in a piece thathe speaker's arrival, he called the visit dangerous and irresponsible. nothing good will come of it. don freeman joins us now. he is the author of several bestsellers, such as thank you for being late. so, tom, why was this the wrong thing to do? >> well, i want to make clear that i under stood, i like nancy pelosi, we would not have had the affordable care act without her. she's been a great legislator, but it looks like it's a, swansong who feels like it's her speakership's ending, and she wanted to make this trip. now i get it for nancy pelosi. i don't get it for america. she had a right to do this, but it doesn't mean it was right to do at this time. what did i feel about it? i feel like we have won or overriding foreign policy goal right now, anderson, and that's to ensure that vladimir putin's army in ukraine is at least stall and ideally evicted from ukraine. that is the number one foreign policy issue of the united states. and on the surface of that goal, with the call with the

but let it be known to tom friedman of the new york times, the main call miss taylor is often seen as a, as a biking administration. ready administration whisperer that by word the policies visit my jeopardize talks that the by didn't ministration has been having with china over not rearming. russia as it's all, maria's depleted in ukraine and that but they're all rather unhappy. and then we also get the chinese point of view that we're beginning to get more off now. and you know, we're talking just be timeless in beijing, which is why it's all very well. but the fact remains the bite. ministration has been very tough on taiwan in recent months. joe biden has said a number of things about defending taiwan if it was ever invaded militarily, which is, which has been, has given this idea of strategic ambiguity about what's supposed to be strategic ambiguity when it comes to the us and its responsibilities to taiwan. so there is that suspicion that even though the u. s. is briefing against the police. he visit that in the end. they are hard liners on taiwan and they have no problem with t

george cannon and 1997, and interview with tom friedman said that the expansion of nato is going to leadand a negative direction. i don't think he could have foreseen the war of 2022. we can go back and talk about 2014 and 2015. >> look at that. next >> this is to be a little bit more pointed than the great steve kotlin and terms of that analysis. to blame nato expansion for the russian invasion of brave 2022 is really ludicrous. the nature of the invasion, the motivations at best joining nato is a very different prospect in 2022. if it's if it was even a real prospect before the war. maybe will become a prospect because of the war. before the war, it was not a real prospect. so, to put nato and a causal sense at the beginning of that story is just off the mark. >> nato expansion may or may not have been a good idea. you're arguing it cannot be blame for that. >> correct. >> there is an argument to be made for that based on putin himself, his view of history. as mr. kotlin explained, as others have explained, it goes back to this ultra nationalist, he does not want to bring back the sovi

tom friedman, 1990s, he wrote for the new york times. he wrote a book where he deposited that no two countries that both had mcdonald's and over gone to war with each other. at the time he wrote it, he was wrong. the u.s. has like invaded panama, both of those had mcdonald's. but since the 1990s, through the 1990s into the 2000s, there has been more and more evidence of like, oh, liberal economics and liberal democracy doesn't mean that there won't be conflict. but at the time, there was this widespread shared idea that there was. so, i want to talk about the legacy, and, then i want to move on to the response of the left, so just really kind of -- and this is going to spencer's think of, i've heard of it, but if you put a gun to my head. i was wondering, where is the end of history in the evergreen library catalog? i was legitimately looking for the book, to see if we have an e-book of it. but then, i was this is really fascinating. so, pay some attention to the topics that people use for -- can folks see it? can folks see the book titl

like tom friedman in the new york times, it is reckless. the u.s. china relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world. causing a storm in that relationship, you would have to have a really good reason. let's face it, the biggest issue facing our planet, climate change, the future of the global economy, nuclear proliferation and preventing some kind of catastrophic, great power or. these will be determined by u.s.-china relations. i was not pleased to see this. clearly, i am not an expert on u.s. politics. i focus on chinese politics. the trip is no doubt intended to boost the political fortunes of pelosi, and democrats going into the midterms. i think the biden administration was rightly every cautious, and with hoping that she would not go. we are going to see the consequences. i do not think this is going to lead to a war. it might. undoubtedly, this is going to lead to grave tensions and an escalation and aspiring rivalry that could lead to war. i believe our nations are on a collision course. i think responsible leaders

i mean george canon in 1997 and interview with tom friedman. said that the expansion of nato was going to lead in a negative direction. i don't think he could have foreseen the the war of 2022. of course we can go back and talk about 2014 and 2015. i do next we'll get to that. i think it's you know, and this is to be a little bit more pointed than then the great steve kotkin in terms of that analysis. to blame nato expansion for the in russian invasion of february 2022 is really ludicrous the nature of the invasion the motivations, you know at best joining. nato is a very distant prospect in 2022 if it's even if it was even a real prospect before the war, maybe it will become a prospect because of the war but before the war it wasn't a real prospect so to put nato in any causal sense at the beginning of that story is just it's just off the mark. nato expansion may or may not have been a good idea, but you're arguing and cannot be blamed for that. i mean there is a there is an argument to be made for that based on putin himself his view of histo

oh, it's about it's something like the olive tree tom friedman in the 1990s. he writes for the new york times. he wrote a book where he posited that no two countries that both had mcdonald's had other gone to war with each other. at the time he wrote it he was wrong the us had like invaded panama. both of those had mcdonald's. but since the 1990s through the 1990s into the 2000s. there's been more and more evidence of like oh. liberal economics and liberal democracy doesn't mean that there won't be conflict. but at the time there was this like widespread shared idea that there was so i want to talk about the legacy and then i want to move on to the the response of the left. to just really kind of so i and this is going to to spend such thing about i've heard of it, but i don't have if you had a gun to my head. so i just was like, where is the end of history in the evergreen library catalog? i was just legitimately looking for the book to see if we had an ebook of it. but then i was like this is really fascinating. so just pay some attention to the topics that

well as possible, you need to understand this article was crafted by thomas friedman. tom is one of the establishment. commentators in washington d. c. got to start with the new york times. now he's a guest columnist, i guess is the best way to describe it. well, i mean, this would be terribly funny if it wasn't so serious because what, what is betrayed by friedman's article is the utter chaos. that is, the biden administration's foreign policy, because they keep sending mixed signals. they say they will back the one find a policy they don't recognize. independence for taiwan. yet, philosophies arrival and all of the other message isn't going to alliance to just that. what friedman is really upset about is he thinks and i think correctly. so this ends up being a diversion from the united states for to support the war in ukraine. but what friedman is reflecting as well, is delusion. he is failing to acknowledge that russia is prevailing and the conflict in ukraine. and he hence about it that the support for the lensky is in fact, eroding and washington. i think that is abso

earlier china banned food imports from 2000 taiwanese, opinion is divided, tom friedman says why pelosi'se now. what should our response be? what should it be to china's clear military aggression and harassment? >> forceful backing of speaker pelosi and unequivocal response to china but we take threat seriously. when karine jean-pierre was asked about this she said she would not answer a hypothetical. the action is hypothetical, the threat is very real. it is not an appropriate answer to say we won't and sarah hypothetical. kirby said this is an important visit from pelosi, we stand behind her and will protect her. that needs to be the message even though the white house, the pentagon telling speaker pelosi, they need to be unequivocal. stuart: we are waiting to see what china's reaction is going to be. we don't know if it was harassed by anybody, we don't know that but china has pledged the forceful response to the visit. what should our response to their response be? i want to leapfrog over their response and lay the law down. are we going to provide taiwan with all the new weapons? >>

tom friedman is a very good, knowledgeable columnist he was once an excellent correspondent for the newke, but flat earth and countries will never be at war with each other, because they are united by coca-cola and one internet. all this turned out to be nonsense. but when he speaks like a reporter, and in this case he is giving information about what is happening in the white house more widely in the administration. he usually knows what he's saying and does it er, quite responsibly. uh, i've been talking. i thought some of the people i talked to there and i also heard, if you want disappointment and annoyance. and president zelensky to his inner circle, i don’t want to immediately warn our viewers from understanding that there is a difference, uh, between, uh, disappointment and even irritation on the one hand and a willingness to change american policy towards ukraine, i do n’t see such a readiness yet. and zelensky, if i may say so, using the traditional american expression. uh, in the white house, a lot of people think he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch, and he's no

this is why tom friedman of the new york times is right when he says this visit is reckless, dangerousings us closer to it and that is why we should take taiwan very, very seriously. so should take taiwan very, very seriously-— should take taiwan very, very seriousl . ., , ., , seriously. so what in your view is the strategic _ seriously. so what in your view is the strategic purpose _ seriously. so what in your view is the strategic purpose of - seriously. so what in your view is the strategic purpose of the - seriously. so what in your view is| the strategic purpose of the trip? what is nancy plaisir hoping to achieve? —— nancy pelosi. i what is nancy plaisir hoping to achieve? -- nancy pelosi. i must say ou have achieve? -- nancy pelosi. i must say you have asked _ achieve? -- nancy pelosi. i must say you have asked a _ achieve? -- nancy pelosi. i must say you have asked a brilliant _ achieve? -- nancy pelosi. i must say you have asked a brilliant question, i you have asked a brilliant question, and this woman, all she cares about, to be very honest with you, are her domestic, poor

i had these wonderful models for example milton friedman and tom sol and shelby steele and victor davis write so clearly. i have a secret weapon which is my wonderful assistant over there. [applause] my other secret weapon is my wife who says hey we have to live here. >> which event or book has most influenced your revised banking? >> i think it's an great credit to world of serfdom on capitalism andnd freedom and common sense. and white guilt by shelby steele in and the works of tom sol. particularly economic facts. you probably know of looks. all of them page by page he read the menu say oh my god that so clear. thatould i not have seen before and one of the people he started with was of course milton friedman. i read the friedman said to his doctoral doctoral students i'm a thesis andrd to it can be longer than 500 words. isn't that great? >> yeah. i have many more questions in no time. i'm sorry about that. i'm not sorry for the last last hour prevented this is going was going to be a wonderful, wonderful experience and on behalf of everyone here thank you so much. tonight you're we

for example milton friedman and tom so old and shelby steel victor davis hansen who can write so clearly i say can i have a secret weapon which is my wonderful assistant and the breast best that everyone in the world pam sousumel over there. and my other secret weapon is my wife who reads it and says dave we have to live here. with it, event or book? has most influenced your now this your revised thinking. well, i think it's you know a great trinity of the road to serve them by hayek and capitalism and freedom and common sense. and white guilt by shelby steele and the entire works of tom soule, you know, particularly ethnic america and economic facts and fallacy. i hope you probably know all the books. they're all of me. just page by page you read them and say, oh my god, that's so clear. how can i not have seen that before and it goes back to one of the people he studied with was of course milton friedman the university of chicago and i've read maybe true that friedman said to his doctoral students. i'm looking forward to your thesis. it can't be longer than 500 words that great. yeah.

tom: i want to go to benjamin friedman, take all the work that you did at harvard, and his worry abouttained growth. in the jumble that we are in and 2022, is global growth at risk? this modern experiment of 6% china, decent growth in america, is growth finally at risk? ed: good question. if you look at what is happening on the demographic side, we have been slowing over the past couple decades. china's population is set to slow. birthrates in the u.s. are exceptionally low. the productivity is the key question. productivity over the last several years has been very disappointing. flat to negative this year. unless there is a recovery in productivity, which is a significant question mark, i think long-run growth is likely to take a step down. from an industry perspective it creates a challenging environment. it becomes more likely that interest rates back to that secular stagnation, low demand, high savings place. tom: i want to get that in for our august gloom theme. jonathan: is that what it is? ed, thank you. just a mention of how yield. in a month we have tightened 140 basis points

tom: you look at the academic data with benjamin friedman, one of my first interviews -- a giant on growth. can they pull this off with recession growth? whatever america is feeling, can they pull off all of this, given tepid growth? michael: that remains to be seen. that is the part wall street is challenging. that is the part i will try to push back against today. you talk about under trend growth. you cannot come out and say recession is likely. he could sort of hint that this is going to happen and we are going to push through it. tom: great coverage today. is this the most controversial market economist in america today? jonathan: mike mckee are chairman powell? tom: let's bring in the bloomberg economics writer with an exceptionally aggressive writer -- outlook for inflation. let me begin with the simple question. if we get on and on long interest rate-- an anna wong interest rate regime, what happens to american economic growth? anna: as powell says, what is the bedrock of american growth? it is price stability. it would be good for american growth if it was price stability. tom: bu

friedman writes in the "new york times" earlier today. nancy pelosi don't defy your own president, all right? here is senator tomfrom arkansas, who is on exactly the opposite side of that argument from earlier. >> bill: once the biden administration leaked this trip in an effort to deter nancy pelosi was going it was essential she go. i'm disappointed the biden white house has tried to put pressure on a speaker of their own party not to travel to taiwan, which is a longstanding tradition. >> bill: can you sort this out for viewers that are home trying to figure a from b to c? >> sure. i can tell you where senator cotton is wrong. the trip was not intentionally leaked by the biden white house. it made their life much more difficult once this became public. they were privately -- once they found out about the trip contacting pelosi's office to say we don't think it's a good idea. postpone it until after the party congress. biden didn't want it to be him publicly coming out against pelosi and telling her i'm telling her not to go. she could only dig in in that environment and come a matter of wills. nobody wanted t

tom: we say thank you to all and technology driving forward the terminal each and every day. driving for the retail discussion is dana tell sleep -- dana telsey. no in the game besides maybe vanessa friedmantimes, she's invested in the fabric and retail of -- fabric and retail of america. we have to go to luxury goods, icy lbmh, maybe 7% from a record high. it is luxury an old story where you can invest now or can luxury continue to be a value for viewers and listeners? dana:dana: i think luxury can continue to be of value for viewers and listeners. keep in mind, this luxury step is happening regardless of the fact that the chinese are not traveling. so you have not had travel for the chinese. it has been the local europeans, americans going to europe, where we have seen the strength of luxury. and certainly when we start to see the lockdown decelerate and china, and they start to travel, that is the benefit. let's not forget that for the past two years, with the pandemic, social occasions have not been celebrated, so, yes, we have 2.6 million weddings in the u.s. this year compared to 2.1 billion on average, but even next year, there will be more to celebrate, and the luxury pendulum wil